Ajru S/O Shaukat Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:7492]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 963/2026

¶4

Ajru S/o Shaukat, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Bela, Police Station Sikari, District Deeg (Rajasthan) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Deeg).

¶5

Aslam S/o Sahabdeen, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Bela, Police Station Sikari, District Deeg (Rajasthan) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined in Sub Jail Deeg).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Gurvindra Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar,PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

¶12

Order

¶13

17/02/2026

¶14

The present bail application has been filed by the accusedpetitioners under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with F.I.R. No.169/2025 registered at Police Station Gopalgarh, District Deeg, for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 303(2), 317(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 308(2), 340(2), 61(2)(a) BNS and under Section 66-D of IT Act.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accusedpetitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have nothing to do with the alleged offences. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged offences are triable by magistrate and two co-accused persons, namely Mursaleem S/o Rati Khan and Farid S/o Kamrudin, have already been enlarged on bail by a Co-

[CRLMB-963/2026]

[2026:RJ-JP:7492]

(2 of 3)

ordinate Bench of this Court, vide a common order dated 24.01.2026 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 277/2026 & 954/2026, respectively and the case of present petitioners stands on same footing. Learned counsel also submits that there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioners; they are in custody since long, no recovery is required to be made from them and trial will take considerably long time in its conclusion, so no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in custody, therefore, they may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that petitioners are involved in serious offences involving cyber fraud activities.

¶21

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, the fact that two co-accused persons, namely Mursaleem S/o Rati Khan and Farid S/o Kamrudin, have already been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and without commenting anything on the merits / demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶22

Therefore, the instant bail application is allowed and the accused-petitioners, namely Ajru S/o Shaukat and Aslam S/o Sahabdeen , are ordered to be released on bail, provided, each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with the following conditions:-

(3 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:7492]

[CRLMB-963/2026]

(i) The accused-petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner.

¶27

(ii) The accused-petitioners shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law.

¶28

(iii) The accused-petitioners shall attend the hearing of the trial Court on the date fixed by the trial Court or as and when they are asked to appear before the trial Court.

¶29

(iv) Violation of any of the above conditions shall be a sufficient ground for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to the petitioners by this Court.

¶30

The accused-petitioners are directed to mark their presence on 1^st Monday of every month till conclusion of trial before the concerned Police Station. The SHO of the concerned Police Station shall send the presence report of the accused-petitioners to the trial Court on the same day of every month. In case of any breach of the above condition, learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move an application against the petitioners for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Court.

¶31

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance.

¶32

(SANDEEP TANEJA),J

¶33

AVINASH GULERIA /36

Ajru S/O Shaukat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajru S/O Shaukat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahin Khan S/O Late Mohammed Hussain Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sholu Kuntal S/O Shri Rajkumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Hariom S/O Suresh Vs State of Rajasthan

Soyal S/O Arsad Vs State of Rajasthan

Es Mohammad S/O Jafru Vs State of Rajasthan

Mangal Singh S/O Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Rajasthan